Monday, October 09, 2006

Welcome to our Club

The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Hands up everyone who feels proud to be on that list.

Yes yes, I know, it's not comparing like for like. I mean, it's not like the US or the UK would launch an unprovoked attack on another country for entirely spurious reasons. The rest of the world are undoubtedly extremely happy that trusted, respected, peaceful nations like ourselves and our American masters allies have nuclear weapons. There's just no reason for people from other countries to think that British protestations are hypocritical.

Mrs Beckett rejected suggestions North Korea's actions had anything to do with military action against Iraq or that Britain's moral authority had been weakened by the Iraq war.

"I don't think that is the case," she said. "After all, it's quite a considerable time now since that happened and there are much more current United Nations statements, resolutions and so on."

No, I can't keep up the sarcasm any longer. What a stupid person Beckett is. It's quite a considerable time now since that happened? If there was a reward for "Asinine Comment of the Decade" that'd have to be right up there in the nominations.

Much as Blair and his minions may wish it otherwise, the fallout from the invasion of Iraq will continue to pollute international relations for a very long time indeed. In the real world, it can't be spun away, a line can't be drawn under it. Even when the war eventually makes it into the fabled pages of history (as a comma apparently), it'll continue to influence events around the world.

It is, in fact, impossible to be sure whether the invasion of Iraq, and the related matter of Bush's inclusion of North Korea in the "axis of evil", have contributed to Kim Jong-il's determination to aquire nuclear weapons. Clearly, North Korea's nuclear weapons programme must have been up and running for many years before the invasion. It is highly likely, however, that the Iraq war acted as a huge motivator and hurry up call to the North Korean dictator to fast track work on his "deterrent". Having seen what happened to Saddam, is it unsurprising that this is the route he'd choose to protect his regime?

Of course, none of that is an argument in support of North Korea having nuclear weapons. Kim Jong-il appears to be entirely unpredictable; if he's a proponent of the madman theory, he's very good at it indeed. A man who has a bouffant hairstyle in order to look taller is not the sort of man who should have his finger on the nuclear button.

Blogroll

About Me

I've moved here.
BSSC is written by a Scotsman called Garry Smith. He has no affiliations or connections to any political party or media organisation. His views are his own.
Garry has only written about himself in the third person twice and you're reading the second effort now. The first was the previous version of this profile which referred to his former pseudonym, CuriousHamster. This odd nickname has now been retired.
Feel free to express your opinions on what's posted. There is a comment policy in an attempt to keep things civilized.